Sarah Witty (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Administrative and Judicial Review Legislation Amendment Bill 2026. The heart of this bill is about a simple commitment: when government makes a decision that affects someone's life, there should be a fair and independent way to review that decision. That principle is central to a healthy democracy. Australians expect government decisions to be made fairly according to law and subject to independent review when they are challenged. Strengthening the way government decisions are reviewed is one of the ways we make government better. It helps identify mistakes, improve decision-making and strengthen trust that the government is working in the interests of the people it serves. People should know there is an independent body that can step in and consider whether a decision has been made correctly.

These concerns led the Albanese Labor government to abolish the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the AAT, and establish the Administrative Review Tribunal, the ART, in its place. When Labor came to government, confidence in the AAT had been badly damaged. For too long, appointments had become associated with political connections rather than public confidence. Australians rightly expected organisations implementing vital public functions to be independent, professional and trusted. The Albanese Labor government acted. We established the ART, introducing a new, merits based appointments process and returning integrity to federal review processes. But the government did more than create a new tribunal. We also made sure it had the people, systems and support needed to do its job properly. That included bringing in more members, improving how cases are managed and helping resolve matters earlier where possible.

The ART now considers decisions made under hundreds of Commonwealth laws. Every day it helps Australians who have experienced a decision they don't agree with and want reviewed. These reforms were about far more than just changing a name. They were about restoring trust—trust that the government's decisions are being examined by a body that is independent, capable and focused on getting things right.

Bodies like the ART play an important role in our democracy. They provide an avenue for people who believe a decision may be wrong, they help decision-makers improve the quality of their work and they help identify issues in the system so government can learn and improve. This bill continues that work.

Creating the ART was part of a wider effort to rebuild trust in government and make sure important public institutions are working in the way Australians expect. The Albanese Labor government believes fairness and efficiency must go hand in hand. A process should be fair, but it also should be timely, because people deserve both.

One of the reasons I feel strongly about this issue comes from a conversation I had with a close friend before I entered parliament. This friend never really trusted government, no matter who was in power. She always asked the same question: 'Who holds government accountable when decisions affect people's lives?' Looking back, she was really talking about accountability. She wanted to know there was somewhere people could turn when a government decision seemed wrong. Most people do not think about tribunals or review bodies in their daily life, but they do want to know there is an independent process available when something goes wrong. The reforms in this bill support this goal. They give the tribunal the tools it needs to deliver fair and timely outcomes, because reform cannot be a set-and-forget exercise.

No system stays exactly the same forever. The number of cases change, community expectations change and new challenges emerge. Good government continues looking for ways to improve public systems and how people experience them. Since the ART commenced operating in 2024, the government has continued working to improve how cases are managed, reduce needless complications and help the tribunal focus its resources where they are needed most. This bill contains a range of practical amendments designed to improve efficiency, strengthen process and support the tribunal in managing growing workloads, because delays have real consequences. When people are waiting for an outcome, uncertainty affects their lives. Family plans are put on hold. Businesses delay decisions. Individuals are left wondering what comes next.

One of the changes in the bill gives the tribunal greater flexibility in providing reasons for decisions. In some cases, reasons may be delivered orally, while applicants will continue to have the ability to request written reasons where needed. This is practical reform. Not every matter requires the same level of process. Not every matter requires the same use of resources. These amendments allow tribunal members to focus more time on resolving matters and less time on clerical obligations that may not always be necessary. That means better use of resources and quicker outcomes for people waiting for decisions.

Importantly, the government are taking a balanced approach because we recognise that some types of decisions will require different considerations. Areas including social security, the NDIS, veterans matters and aged-care matters can involve very personal and complex circumstances. The government has been careful to improve efficiency while maintaining appropriate safeguards because speed should never come at the expense of getting the process right. As a proud Labor government we believe Australians deserve both.

The bill also includes measures to improve migration review processes. Applicants will need to provide information in a standard way. This is good for people using the system, and it helps create a process that is more responsive and effective.

The bill before the House takes a real-world approach. It does not remove people's right to seek review. Instead, it helps the systems work better, reduces preventable delays and supports timely decisions for people who are waiting for answers.

During my career before coming to the parliament, I spent many years running a small business. Running a small business taught me that delays have consequences. Plans get put on hold, opportunities can be missed and time that could be spent growing a business ends up being spent chasing answers. Government decision-making is obviously different from running a business, but the lesson is still much the same: people need timely decisions so they can plan for the future. The same principle applies here. People engaging with government processes should not be held up with unnecessary delays. They should not be dealing with avoidable obstacles. They should be able to understand the process and receive an answer within a reasonable timeframe. That is exactly what this bill seeks to support.

The bill also introduces identity-check requirements for certain migration and protection review matters. This is a sensible measure aimed at supporting the growing demands on the ART. Australians expect government systems to operate with integrity. They also expect safeguards that support public trust and help ensure the process is being used appropriately.

The legislation also recognises that people have different circumstances and maintains mechanisms that allow individual situations to be considered appropriately. Strong institutions need to be trusted. That means applying the rules consistently and treating people properly.

As we debate this legislation, it is important to remember that these processes are ultimately about people. Every application has a human story behind it, every decision affects somebody's life and every outcome can shape somebody's future. When the Albanese Labor government replaced the AAT with the ART, ensuring an independent and fair process was at the heart of that reform. We see the importance of that every week in electorate offices. Behind every application is someone trying to get on with their life. In an electorate office, every case is different. Sometimes it's a family hoping to be reunited after years apart. Sometimes it's somebody who has worked and studied in Australia for years and is waiting for certainty about what comes next. Other times, it is somebody simply trying to understand where they stand after navigating a complicated process. Whatever the circumstances, most people are not looking for special treatment. They want a clear process, they want the opportunity to put forward their case and they want an answer within a reasonable timeframe.

In my seat of Melbourne, we regularly speak with people seeking certainty about their future, reconnecting with loved ones, building careers, studying, working and contributing to our community. One constituent, whose story I want to highlight, came to Australia in 2013, hoping to build a future through study and work. Instead, they spent more than a decade living with uncertainty about their immigration status. Their case moved through Australia's migration system for many years, including a process that stretched from 2020 until a final decision was made in 2025. During that time, major life decisions were put on hold while they waited for certainty about what their future would hold. Their experience highlights the value of independent scrutiny for government decisions.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 11 : 08 to 11 : 20

Government decisions should be able to be examined independently and according to the law. But getting the right outcomes is only part of the story. Timing matters too. Nobody should be left waiting for an answer while uncertainty hangs over every part of their life. A system that is accessible, efficient and easy for people to navigate helps deliver outcomes sooner and gives people greater certainty about their future. Stories like these remind us what this work is ultimately designed to achieve—to support a system that makes sure decisions can be checked independently and that people have somewhere to turn when something appears to have gone wrong.

The Albanese Labor government has made restoring trust in public institutions a priority. We restored integrity to federal review process, established the ART and introduced a merit based appointments process. We also brought back the Administrative Review Council and put in place stronger oversights to help keep the system independent, accountable and effective. This government has not been afraid to make major changes where change is needed. Replacing the AAT with the ART required significant reform. This bill continues that work by ensuring the system remains effective, practical and responsive. Good government involves more than making decisions. It requires accountability for those decisions, it requires devices to examine them when concerns are raised and it requires institutions that continue to earn the trust of the people they serve.

Most Australians will never spend time thinking about the tribunal. In fact, most people hope they never need to. But when they do need it, it matters that the system works, it matters that decisions can be looked at independently, it matters that people receive an answer in a reasonable timeframe, and it matters that Australians can have faith that government decisions are being properly scrutinised. The Albanese Labor government believes Australians deserve institutions that are trusted, effective and fair. This legislation helps deliver that outcome. It builds on the important reforms already undertaken by this government, strengthens a key institution within our democracy and helps ensure Australians can continue to have confidence that decisions affecting their lives can be made independently. I commend this bill to the House.

Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

The Administrative and Judicial Review Legislation Amendment Bill amends the Administrative Review Tribunal Act and the Migration Act across 12 parts, and most of it is uncontroversial housekeeping: it lets registrars correct obvious errors in tribunal orders; it pauses document deadlines over the Christmas period; it confirms the president sits across every jurisdictional area; it adds a consultation step before non-judicial members are reappointed; and it fixes an unintended gap in the timeframe for taxation review applications. None of that troubles me.

But three parts of the bill go further than housekeeping and reshape how migration and protection matters are decided. The bill would let the tribunal give its reasons for decisions orally rather than in writing, with a written statement provided only if a party asks for one within a set window. The bill would allow registrars, not tribunal members, to dismiss an application outright if they judge it has no reasonable prospects of success. And it would introduce new identity verification requirements for migration and protection applicants with mandatory dismissal for noncompliance. The detail of that requirement is left entirely to regulations that do not yet exist. It's these three measures—oral reasons, registrar dismissal powers and identity verification—that I want to focus on today.

I want to start by acknowledging that the Administrative Review Tribunal is under real and growing strain. As at 31 May this year, the Tribunal's Protection Division, which conducts independent merits reviews of decisions made by the Department of Home Affairs to refuse or cancel protection—that is, refugee—visas in Australia, had an active case load of more than 37,000 cases, with a median time to finalise them of 155 weeks, or about three years. The Federal Circuit and Family Court's protection case load sits at over 16,000 cases, with some matters not due for a first hearing until 2029. Migration and protection lodgements now make up 78 per cent of the tribunal's total case load, up from 60 per cent less than a decade ago. The Federal Circuit and Family Court has seen a 116 per cent increase in migration filings since 2022-23, and migration matters now represent 75 per cent of all its non-family-law work.

Now, nobody in this place should pretend that those numbers are acceptable. They're not to the taxpayer paying for a backlog that grows every year, nor to the applicant whose life is on hold because of that backlog.

I support efficiency and the timely processing of protection claims. But here is where I part ways with the government's approach in this bill. The backlog shouldn't be fixed by quietly stripping back protections that exist for good reason because of how much can be at stake for the people making these applications. You don't solve a three-year queue by removing the right to a proper hearing, and you don't protect the integrity of the system by imposing an identity check that many genuine protection visa applicants—including people who are stateless or who fled without the chance to bring any documents with them—will simply have no way of satisfying.

This bill, in its current form, risks undermining the effectiveness and integrity of the merits review system, creating additional burdens for applicants while weakening transparency and accountability. Take the oral reasons provision. Under this bill, the tribunal could deliver its reasons orally, with written reasons provided only if a party specifically requests them within a set period. For most Commonwealth matters, that might be a reasonable efficiency measure. But, as the Refugee Council pointed out in its submission to the Senate committee inquiry into this bill, protection visa applicants face particular barriers. Many have experienced trauma, persecution or torture that affects their ability to recollect and process complex information. Many rely on interpreters. Many have limited familiarity with Australian legal processes and, understandably, limited trust in government authorities, after fleeing authoritarian rule. It's not an efficiency improvement to ask a person in that position to correctly understand, in real time, through an interpreter, that they must lodge a formal request for written reasons within 14 days or lose the ability to properly understand and challenge a decision that could return them to persecution or even death. That is a transfer of risk from the tribunal onto the person least equipped to carry it. Almost two-thirds of applicants are unrepresented at merits review. The Law Council noted that, once you add the 14 days to request written reasons to the further 14 days the tribunal may take to provide them, an applicant is left with barely a week of the 35-day judicial review window to actually prepare and file an application. This means that most people will be forced to seek judicial review without ever having seen the reasons for the decision they're challenging.

Tellingly, the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee saw this too. While the committee recommended the bill be passed, it could not wave through the oral reasons scheme without qualification. The committee recommended that applicants who receive oral reasons be given clear written notice of the time limits for requesting written reasons and for judicial review, and that the tribunal act as expeditiously as possible when reasons are requested. Now, when a committee that's recommending you pass a bill still feels the need to build a safety rail around one of its central measures, that's the parliament telling the government that the measure is not yet right.

The same pattern shows up with the expanded registrar dismissal powers. This bill would allow registrars—not tribunal members but administrative staff, who do not go through the same merits based, independent appointment process—to dismiss an application entirely if they judge it has no reasonable prospect of success. This goes beyond a procedural function. It's a substantive judgement, requiring exactly the expertise and independence that the merits review system has until now reserved for tribunal members. Vulnerable, unrepresented applicants may be incorrectly assessed as having no reasonable prospects simply because they lack the legal skill to properly articulate a genuine claim in writing. Many would never even know they had the right to request that their dismissed application be reinstated—that is, their review rights restored, as proposed in this bill.

Then there's identity verification. This is the part of the bill about which we know the least. The bill would allow mandatory dismissal of an application if an applicant cannot satisfy an identity-verification requirement, with the entire substance of that requirement left to regulations that do not yet exist. Departmental officials were unable to tell the Senate committee how this requirement would work in practice, only that it will be worked through. We should not be legislating mandatory dismissal powers first and figuring out the safeguards for stateless and undocumented people afterwards.

I want to speak directly now about the voice of Grandmothers for Refugees in Curtin, a group in my own electorate, women whom I know well, who give their time to advocate for people seeking safety in this country. In their submission to the committee, they raised the very same concerns I've outlined here—that oral reasons risk creating additional burdens because applicants must first know and understand that they even have a right to request a written decision; that the extension of registrar powers risks weakening procedural safeguards for protection visa applicants because assessing whether an application has no reasonable prospect of success is not a procedural function but one that requires the expertise and independent decision-making of tribunal members; and automatic dismissal for noncompliance with identity-verification requirements risks weakening those same safeguards still further.

Grandmothers for Refugees Curtin has seen firsthand the human cost of a broken review system. The fast-track process, and the Immigration Assessment Authority that sat within it, was introduced in 2014, and, by the time it was finally abolished in October 2024, it was widely regarded as one of the most unfair chapters in this country's asylum history. It was a system that stripped back procedural safeguards in the name of speed, and left a legacy of harm that is still being addressed today. When Grandmothers for Refugees Curtin identifies that this bill risks repeating those mistakes, I take that seriously, and the House should too.

I do not oppose efficiency. I do not oppose a tribunal that resolves matters faster. But international experience set out in the 2024 Kaldor centre brief shows that fairness can enhance efficiency. Investing in early legal assistance and well-designed case triage, rather than stripping back rights, can speed up asylum processing. That's the model this government should be pursuing. Instead, this bill asks traumatised, unrepresented people to navigate tighter deadlines with less written information; permits registrars to make substantive judgements on claims without the safeguards that should accompany that responsibility; and asks this parliament to hand over identity-verification powers before anyone can explain how they'll actually work.

There's something troubling in the logic that the committee itself uses to justify this bill. At paragraph 2.59 of its report, the committee notes its concern that 'unscrupulous individuals engaging with merits and judicial review may be deliberately providing incorrect or fraudulent advice to applicants', and identified 'maintaining the integrity' of the review system as a legitimate reason for this bill. But look at what those measures actually do. Tighter deadlines for written reasons don't touch those unscrupulous individuals; they fall on the applicant who didn't understand the deadline. Registrar dismissal powers don't touch those unscrupulous individuals; they fall on the applicant whose case is wrongly assessed. And mandatory identity verification doesn't touch those unscrupulous individuals; it falls on the applicant who cannot produce a document. The committee justified this bill in part by the conduct of people who prey on applicants, yet every consequence contained in this part of the bill lands on the applicants themselves.

I'm pleased to second the second reading amendment moved by the member for Kooyong. It doesn't decline the bill a second reading. It asks this House to notice three things about this bill, and it asks the government to fix them. The first concerns a matter of consistency. This parliament has already accepted that oral reasons are not always appropriate in every jurisdictional area. The bill itself carves out—from the oral reasons discretion—social security matters, veterans entitlements matters, aged-care matters and NDIS matters. Protection visa matters are not carved out. So we've arrived at a position where the parliament considers a written statement of reasons indispensable when the question is a person's aged-care package but dispensable when the question is whether a person is returned to a country where they may face persecution. I cannot reconcile those two propositions, and I don't believe the government can either. The amendment asks that protection matters be exempt from the oral reasons provision in part 10, consistent with those for other jurisdictional areas.

The second concerns who exercises the dismissal power. Under part 1, the registrar may dismiss an application on the subjective grounds that it has no reasonable prospects of success. This is a function that has, until now, been reserved to tribunal members. Registrars are not required to hold legal qualifications. The amendment asks that the power be restricted to tribunal members or, in the alternative, that any registrar exercising it hold appropriate legal qualifications and consult a senior member before dismissing a protection visa application. This is the same bar that is applied to every other substantive judgement in the merits review system.

The third concerns identity. The amendment notes that the bill imposes a mandatory identity verification requirement without prescribing in the bill itself the criteria or safeguards that will apply. Many protection applicants are stateless. Many are undocumented. The amendment asks that the framework in part 12 cannot result in the mandatory dismissal of a protection visa application without the applicant first being given notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond. These are modest targeted requests which will not prevent this tribunal from working faster.

I welcome the opportunity to work with the government on the amendment to address the genuine resourcing crisis at the tribunal without asking the most vulnerable people in our migration system to bear the cost of that fix. Efficiency and natural justice are not in conflict. This bill, as it stands, treats them as if they were.

Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Immigration) | Link to this | Hansard source

The foundation of any good democracy is the right of citizens to have reviewed government decisions and decisions of government departments. It's been a hallmark of the Australian system of government for the past century—that Australian citizens have the right to have decisions of government departments and, indeed, of government officials, including ministers, reviewed by an independent body. That is why our government established the Administrative Review Tribunal, to ensure that members of the community have an avenue to seek review of government decisions in a way that is effective, efficient and fair. The Federal Circuit and Family Court also plays a critical role in hearing and determining judicial review applications of certain administrative decisions.

But the scale of demand on these systems has grown dramatically. As at 30 June 2026, the Administrative Review Tribunal had 133,749 applications on hand. That's a 19 per cent increase on the previous financial year. In 2024-25, the tribunal had 112,591 cases on hand, which itself represented a 54 per cent increase from the year before and was higher than any reporting year under the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Of the 133,749 matters currently on hand, 118,358 of these matters are migration and protection reviews. That's 88 per cent of the entire caseload of the Administrative Review Tribunal taken up by one specific element of administrative review. That's a 19 per cent increase on the previous year, when the tribunal had 99,462 migration and protection matters on hand. Again, at that time it represented 88 per cent of the caseload of the tribunal. So that's a huge increase in the number of migration and protection applications that are being assessed by the Administrative Review Tribunal. Basically, all the work of the commissioners and reviewers is concentrated on migration matters, and that surge has downstream consequences. In the Federal Circuit and Family Court, there were 7,503 lodgements of migration matters in 2024-25—a 116 per cent increase on 2022-23.

These numbers aren't abstract. They reflect real pressure on the review system. The migration and protection case load is not only large; it is structurally challenging. When applicants seek merits or judicial review of a visa decision, they're entitled to a bridging visa that allows them to remain in Australia until proceedings are completed. Long wait times for review of protection and migration decisions can therefore incentivise unmeritorious applications lodged not to challenge a decision but to extend a stay.

As an example, it's not uncommon for someone to come to Australia on a visitor's visa. The validity of the visitor's visa might be six months, but they get here, they claim protection under the system and it might take 18 months to two years for the department to review that protection claim. The protection claim is rejected, and then the person may seek review in the Administrative Review Tribunal. It can take another three to four years before a decision is made in the ART, so the person has, by then, been here for up to six years. After a denial in the Administrative Review Tribunal, the person is entitled to go to the Federal Court, and all the way to the High Court, if they wish—again, taking years. That can take it up to 10, 11 or 12 years. So someone that was meant to be here for six months ends up being here for 10 years, and that is clogging up the system. There needs to be a way to quickly deal with matters in the Administrative Review Tribunal, particularly in the migration and protection space, to ensure that all Australians get access to justice—and to review, when it's needed.

The data on those migration and protection applications is quite stark. Around 85 per cent of protection visa applications are refused at the primary stage—that is, by the department. When a person makes a claim for protection, it's assessed by the department in accordance with the legislation. Eighty-five per cent of those are rejected. Of those who seek merits review—who go to the ART—90 per cent are unsuccessful. And, in the 2024-25 financial year, less than three per cent of judicial review appeals of protection decisions were allowed by the courts.

That is a system that is under pressure, and that is a system that we cannot ignore as a government if we are going to ensure that all Australians get access, in a timely and efficient way, to the review of administrative decisions and to justice. It's a system that must be strengthened to ensure that it remains fair, efficient and credible—and that's exactly what this bill seeks to do.

This bill, the Administrative and Judicial Review Legislation Amendment Bill, contains a number of practical, balanced measures to improve the efficiency of the Administrative Review Tribunal. It will allow the tribunal to give reasons for a decision orally, rather than always requiring written reasons. Parties will still be able to request written reasons if they need them. But the ability for a member of the ART to issue an oral reason, particularly quickly—in some cases even on the spot—having heard the evidence and the submissions, will be a great help in speeding up the deciding of matters in the ART. It's a straightforward change that ensures members spend their time drafting written reasons only where they are genuinely required. These changes will principally apply to matters in the migration case load, and that's because migration is the tribunal's largest on-hand case load, and significant efficiencies can be achieved by permitting oral reasons in these matters.

Importantly, the review of social security matters has been purposely excluded. Social security matters relating to people's pensions and other government payments will not be the subject of this fast-tracked process with oral decisions. These matters already have unique review processes, and the reconstituted Administrative Review Council is considering social security review processes. It's appropriate to allow that work to continue.

National Disability Insurance Scheme matters, veterans entitlements and aged-care matters have also been excluded from that process of oral reasons, recognising that they often involve complex assessments of fact or other materials. Other areas of review may also be excluded by regulation. This is balanced reform. Applicants who disagree with the decision will still be able to seek written reasons as they consider their appeal options.

The bill also requires applications for reviewable migration and protection decisions to be made through a prescribed form. This ensures that applicants provide all the information the tribunal needs up front, avoiding unnecessary chasing of information when the tribunal could be dedicating its efforts to managing cases. There are also several minor efficiency amendments, including clarifying when documents need to be provided and assigning the president to every jurisdictional area, all aimed at ensuring the tribunal can operate smoothly and consistently. These are sensible, practical measures that provide support for a more efficient tribunal without compromising access to justice and fairness.

A key part of strengthening the integrity of our review system is ensuring that people engaging with it are who they say they are. This bill introduces a new requirement for identity verification for applicants seeking merits or judicial review of certain migration and protection decisions. The details of how this verification will operate, the timing, the process and the practical steps involved will be set out in regulations made under the Migration Act. That means that the parliament will have full visibility of those regulations. They'll be subject to scrutiny and disallowable if they don't operate as intended.

If an applicant doesn't complete the identity verification step in an ART matter, the tribunal will be required to dismiss the application. But, importantly, the existing reinstatement powers remain in place. If a matter was dismissed when it shouldn't have been—for example, because of a genuine personal circumstance—the tribunal can reinstate it and make further orders to ensure the applicant has a fair opportunity to complete the verification process.

For matters before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, the approach is different. Applicants who fail to meet the identity verification requirement would need leave of the court to continue their proceedings. If leave is not granted, the court may dismiss the matter. The court also retains the ability to reinstate proceedings that have been dismissed. This difference in approach reflects the constitutional position of the court as a chapter III body exercising the judicial power of the Commonwealth. Courts must retain discretion in how they manage proceedings. That is why the court will also be able to extend the time for completing identity verification or dispense with the requirement entirely where appropriate.

Taken together, these reforms create a clear and mandatory engagement point between applicants and the review system. They ensure that people seeking review understand what they are doing and that the ART and the court can have confidence that an applicant is genuinely participating in the process. This is a practical integrity measure and a straightforward expectation that supports a more robust merits and judicial review framework while preserving the safeguards and discretion that must exist within our legal system.

This bill strengthens the Administrative Review Tribunal. It improves efficiency, protects integrity, ensures that our review systems continue to serve the Australian people with fairness, transparency and accountability. Our government is in the process of continuous improvement of merits review and is committed to ensuring that our institutions work well for the people who rely on them. These amendments are a practical step towards that goal.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

I have to disagree with the assistant minister as to whether or not the Administrative and Judicial Review Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 strikes the right balance in terms of achieving procedural fairness and ensuring that it remains at the heart of the processes around the Administrative Review Tribunal. This bill contains measures that are in some ways sensible and practical, and I support clearer governance within the Administrative Review Tribunal, the correction of obvious errors in registrars' orders and procedural improvements that can help the tribunal manage a demanding caseload. But—and there's a big 'but'—administrative efficiency cannot be pursued by weakening the safeguards that make review meaningful, especially where the decision made determines whether a person remains safe in Australia or is returned to persecution or serious harm. A review system that is quick but wrong is not an efficient system; it's merely fast, and then it will produce the next appeal. That is the central concern raised by the Asylum Seekers Centre, the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, the Refugee Council of Australia, the Law Council of Australia and the Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, and I share their concerns.

The government should improve this bill before pushing it through. In its present form, several measures risk reducing procedural fairness, shifting pressure downstream to the courts and falling most heavily on the people who are least able to navigate a complicated system, by creating yet another technical hurdle.

The first major concern is the proposal to allow the tribunal to give its decisions and reasons orally, with written reasons supplied only if a party asks for them. Sure, the bill preserves the automatic written reasons for social security, veterans' entitlements, aged-care and NDIS matters, yet it doesn't provide the same protection for migration or protection decisions, despite the obvious vulnerability of many of those applicants and the potentially life-altering consequences. So we're getting two tiers or two standards of justice here through this tribunal now.

Written reasons are important. For anyone who hasn't had to go to court or to be involved in those kinds of proceedings or in a tribunal, written reasons are at the heart of understanding how a decision has been reached, and hearing them orally is simply not the same thing. Written reasons explain what evidence was accepted, what was rejected, what legal test was applied and why the decision was reached. They allow an applicant to understand the outcome and to obtain legal advice specifically to decide whether there is a proper basis for judicial review, and there's also discipline for the decision-maker. It supports consistency, transparency and public accountability. We will not get that in solely oral reasons.

Under the proposed migration provisions, an applicant who receives oral reasons generally has 14 days to request written reasons. The tribunal then has up to 14 days to provide them. But the usual period for commencing judicial review is, in fact, 35 days from the decision, so, in the worst case, an applicant may receive written reasons with only a handful of days left to find a lawyer, understand a complex decision and then prepare a court application for an appeal. The Kaldor centre's research indicates that almost two-thirds of protection applicants are unrepresented at merits review. If you then add the language barriers that you frequently have, limited understanding of the review process, and the effects of trauma, supposedly simple request requirements become a real barrier to justice.

The Senate committee recommended clear written notice of the period for requesting reasons and the applicable judicial review deadline and that requested reasons be provided as quickly as possible. That is a welcome recommendation, but I would say it's a pretty minimum standard and safeguard, not a solution. Protection visa matters—and I urge the Attorney-General and the government to consider this—should be expressly exempt from oral reasons. At the very least, written reasons should be automatic where the tribunal affirms a refusal or cancellation—that is, when there is a really significant decision, like a refusal or cancellation, where someone's safety, security and circumstances will be immediately impacted, written reasons should be provided. The judicial review clock should not expire before reasons have been provided and the applicant has had a fair opportunity to act—and a handful of days is not a fair opportunity.

The second major concern is the proposed identity verification regime for prescribed migration and protection reviews in the tribunal and prescribed judicial review proceedings in the Federal Court and the Federal Circuit and Family Court. Preventing applications lodged without a person's knowledge or consent is a legitimate objective; so is ensuring that applicants engage with their proceedings. But the response must be proportionate to the problem, and parliament has not been given any evidence needed to judge that proportionality. The bill establishes the consequences of noncompliance but leaves much of the identity verification scheme to later regulation, including which review matters will be covered, and when, where and how identity must be verified. The government has not explained what evidence will be accepted and how applicants without conventional identity documents will be accommodated.

Again, I ask you to turn your mind to the most vulnerable applicants in these situations. This is particularly troubling for refugees, stateless people and others who may have fled without a passport or a birth certificate, whose documents were confiscated or destroyed, whose name has been transliterated in different ways, or whose identity has never been recorded through systems comparable to Australia's. How are they to meet these requirements? Identity is not the same thing as possession of an approved document. A procedural failure is not proof of fraud, and an applicant's difficulty satisfying a new administrative process tells us nothing about whether Australia owes that person protection. The government should not proceed with requiring the ART to dismiss a migration or protection review automatically because an applicant has failed to satisfy an identity verification requirement.

I want to talk about fairness and efficiency. None of this is an argument for endless delay or for allowing clearly abusive applications to clog the system. I agree: backlogs harm everyone. They undermine confidence and prolong uncertainty for genuine applicants. Fairness and efficiency are not opponents. Fair procedures improve the quality and finality of decisions. Applicants who understand the process and the reasons for an outcome are better placed to accept it and to seek review only where a genuine legal issue arises. That's why I'd urge the government to consider that there are clearly two streams of applicants often before the tribunal. We have people coming from nations that we know are not subject to discrimination, they are not in fear and they are not persecuted. People coming from OECD countries, from the UK or from trading partners are not going to be the same applications as those of applicants coming from countries where there are concerns that are clearly identified for the government, and I think there should not be the same process. Someone overstaying a tourist visa trying to stay because they'd like to work here, someone from the UK, should not be treated as a person as vulnerable as a person coming from a very different country with very different risks.

The Administrative Review Tribunal was created to be fair, just, accessible, responsive and transparent, and to promote trust and confidence in the administrative review process. Those objectives must remain more than words on a page. We must protect those values. Good administration is not measured simply by how quickly a file is closed, but by whether the correct and preferable decision is reached through a process people can understand and trust, and where procedural fairness has been provided. Justice in that sense is the only thing that upholds a system that ensures trust. For people seeking Australia's protection, the consequences of error are significant. They're profound. They are life-changing. They can put people's lives at risk. Parliament should insist on efficiency and excellence in public administration, but never at the price of justice and safety.

Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) | Link to this | Hansard source

The purpose of the Administrative and Judicial Review Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 is to enhance the efficiency and responsiveness of the Administrative Review Tribunal and the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) to more effectively respond to their significant and increasing caseloads. The bill incorporates several measures that would improve the efficiency of the tribunal. It also introduces a new requirement for the verification of the identity of an application for review of a prescribed reviewable migration or protection decision. In particular, the bill would enable the ART to give reasons for a decision orally in more cases, with written statements of reasons to be given at the request of a party. A written record of a decision will continue to always be provided to parties. These changes will save ART resources in cases where oral reasons are suitable, but will still require written reasons in reviews relating to social security, aged-care, veterans' entitlements or the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and other prescribed caseloads. The bill would require applicants seeking merits review of a reviewable migration or protection decision to use an approved form when making their application. This avoids the unnecessary chasing of information when the ART could be dedicating its efforts to managing cases.

The bill would also require applicants seeking merits or judicial review of a prescribed protection or migration decision at the tribunal and the Federal Circuit and Family Court (Division 2) to verify their identity. This will ensure genuine engagement with the review processes for these matters. Applicants in the tribunal who do not comply with the identity verification requirement would result in the tribunal being required to dismiss the matter. Applicants who fail to comply with the identity verification requirement in judicial review proceedings would require leave of the court to continue proceedings. Proceedings which are dismissed for failure to comply with the requirement would be able to be reinstated where appropriate.

The bill contains a range of other efficiency amendments, including to enable the president of the ART to authorise registrars to exercise additional powers, including to dismiss and reinstate applications in more circumstances; require the government to consider additional advice from the president when considering whether to reappoint an ART member, including in relation to operational needs of the ART; greater flexibility for a salaried tribunal member to become a sessional member or vice versa with appropriate safeguards; clarify when certain documents need to be provided to the ART; and timeframes for seeking review for certain decisions.

The bill reflects the ongoing commitment of this government to ensuring the tribunal and Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) procedures and operations are robust and can effectively respond to significant caseload pressures. The measures in the bill will enhance tribunal efficiency, avoid delay and ensure that decisions can be made in an effective and timely manner.

The government will not be supporting the second reading amendment from the member for Kooyong. The government maintains that this bill is appropriately balanced and targeted to support a more efficient and effective tribunal.

Cassandra Fernando (Holt, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Attorney-General. The original question was that this bill now be read a second time to which the honourable member for Kooyong has moved an amendment—that all words after that be admitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.